Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks
- Journal
- Nature
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1038/41102 →Countries where authors are citing Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks
This map shows the geographic impact of Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks
This network shows the impact of Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks.
About Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks
This paper, published in 1997, received 506 indexed citations . Written by Christine L. Stager and Janet F. Werker covering the research area of Developmental and Educational Psychology and Cultural Studies. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Developmental and Educational Psychology (461 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (276 citations) and Cognitive Neuroscience (96 citations). Published in Nature.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1038/41102.